G.R. No. 184621 - Republic vs. Cantor

Freddie B. Laurente, the petitioner, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against Helenar Construction and its registered owner, Joel Argarin, challenging his termination.
Freddie had been continuously employed as a painter since April 2012 at various project sites of the respondents’ construction business.

Binondo, Manila (April 2012 to May 2012)
Buendia, Makati (May 2012 to July 2012)
Little Baguio Terraces, San Juan, Manila (July 2012 until his termination in November 2014)

The nature of Freddie’s work was deemed necessary and desirable to the core operations of respondents’ construction business.

On October 24, 2014, respondents’ foreman, William Bragais, presented Freddie with a labor contract for a period of three (3) months containing a clause that stated employment would be renewable based on evaluations by the site engineer and the foreman.
Freddie refused to sign the contract on the grounds that it would violate his security of tenure.

Shortly thereafter, on November 7, 2014, Engineer Camille Palattao, in charge of the project, barred Freddie from entering the construction site, effectively terminating his services.
Respondents argued that Freddie was not their regular employee but rather a worker recruited by their subcontractor, William, a point which was later challenged by Freddie’s continuous work assignments.

On July 6, 2015, the LA held that Freddie was indeed an employee of respondents and that his dismissal was illegal.
The LA noted that Freddie’s work was integral to the respondents’ business, and emphasized that there was no established project employment contract or clear stipulation regarding his term of engagement.
Consequently, the LA awarded Freddie backwages, separation pay, service incentive leave pay, and 13th month pay.

Respondents appealed the LA’s decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which reversed the LA’s findings; the NLRC determined that no employment relationship existed between Freddie and respondents, instead attributing his engagement to William through a four-fold test.

The unsigned contract bore William Bragais’ name.
Cash vouchers indicated that the Bragais brothers were the ones paying Freddie.
The contract allowed William the prerogative to dismiss his painters.
The practice within the construction industry of hiring subcontractors for specific tasks was highlighted.

On October 26, 2015, the NLRC ruled in favor of the respondents, limiting the award to Freddie’s five-day salary.
Freddie elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) through a petition for certiorari.
On May 25, 2018, the CA affirmed the NLRC’s judgment, relying on the labor contract, its stipulations regarding project duration, and the authority of William to dismiss employees.
Freddie sought reconsideration but was denied, leading to the elevation of the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court focused on determining the regularity of Freddie’s employment rather than merely the signed or unsigned status of the contract.
It evaluated whether Freddie’s work was necessary or desirable to the usual business of the respondents, emphasizing that the substance of the employment relationship matters more than the form or contractual labels.
The Court noted anomaly and inconsistency in the timing and purpose of presenting the labor contract, and held that the document was an afterthought designed to deny Freddie regular employee benefits.

Whether Freddie B. Laurente was a regular employee of Helenar Construction as opposed to being engaged as a project employee under a subcontractor arrangement.
Whether Freddie was illegally dismissed, given that his termination did not follow the fundamental requirements of due process and procedural fairness.
Whether the monetary awards granted by the Labor Arbiter – including separation pay, backwages, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees – were justified based on the established facts.